[The Old Hoosier]

It is not the place of a jury to decide constitutionality. Not according to the constitution, anyway.

[Henrietta]

"It is not the place of a jury to decide constitutionality. Not according to the constitution, anyway."

It is emphatically the place of the jury both to judge the law and the facts. The Supreme Court itself has said so.

"The judge cannot direct a verdict it is true, and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." Mr. Justice Holmes, for the majority in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138 (1920).

And you're quite wrong on the Constitutional point as well. The Constitution does not restrict citizens, it restricts government. And it says that people have a right to trial by jury, which implicates a right for the jury to decide facts and law. You seem to be under the very mistaken impression that if the Constitution does not allow it, it is prohibited. This has never been an accepted construction of our constitution.

[Gunslingr3]

It is not the place of a jury to decide constitutionality. Not according to the constitution, anyway.

The jury system is intended as a brake upon the excesses of government. It is a part of keeping 'we the people' the fourth branch of government.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." --Thomas Jefferson

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." --Chief Justice John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, US supreme Court (Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794:4)

"It would be an absurdity for jurors to be required to accept the judge's view of the law, against their own opinion, judgement, and conscience." --John Adams

"It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." --John Adams

Why do you think they want us to forget this...

[bvw]

And therefore William Penn is still locked away in the Tower of London, and Pennsylvania is not, Philadelphia is not, the Liberty Bell is still brass cannons, there is not Carpenter's Hall, there is no Declaration of Independence, there is no Constitution.

What then are you talking about?

For William Penn is convicted of inciting riot, and that, sir, is the LAW!

[templar]

It is not the place of a jury to decide constitutionality. Not according to the constitution, anyway

Correct. That decision is, ultimately, reserved to the USSC by the Constitution.

Hopefully, this guy brought up any constitutional issues to the court during his trial, even if the court rejected them, so that they will be open to apellate review. Otherwise he's out of luck. IMO, all controversial (and even non controversial) legal actions should be set up to win on appeal, not at trial. This way a win at trial ends it but a loss still has the possibility of an ultimate win..

[Leatherneck_MT]

It is the duty of a Jury to decide whether a Law is just or not. It's called Jury Nullification.